DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-9 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim 1 has been canceled
Claims 2-4, 6-8 have been amended.
Claim 9 is new.
There is no prior art rejection at this time for claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed February 10, 2026, with respect to claim 6 rejected under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn, however a new 35 USC 112 rejection for claim 6 has been presented below.
Applicant's arguments (regrading 35 USC 101) filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that claim 2 is patent eligible because it is directed to a technical improvement by reducing display processing load by showing more data for the specific product and an icon for the candidate product. Examiner disagrees.
Claim 2 recites a functional result (displaying information about products) but does not disclose how the device accomplishes the alleged processing‑load reduction in a specific technical way. Merely claiming a desirable result or outcome (less processing) without reciting technical means to achieve that outcome is insufficient (See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Claims were found eligible when they specify improvement to computer functionality, however this is not present in claims 2-9. Also, it is noted that Applicant is arguing features not claimed. For example, amended claim 2 does not recite “a larger amount of information for a specific product…and displays a smaller amount of information for candidate product…” Amended claim 2 nor the original specification makes any mention of size or processing loads when displaying information to a user.
The recited elements (information display device, memory and processor) are generic computer components performing routine activities. When conventional computer hardware is used in a well‑understood manner to implement an abstract idea, the claims fail Step 2. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F. 3d 709 (Fed. Cir 2014).
Next, Applicant cites the Appeals Review Panel Decision Ex Parte Desjardins and the December 5, 2025 memo. That guidance instructs Examiners not to disregard genuine technical limitations in claims. However, the Examiner must evaluate what is actually claimed. In the present claims, the alleged technical improvement is asserted at a high level by Applicant without claim limitations that identify how the improvement is technically realized. Claim 2 recites display, to enable the customer to find the desired product, information of the specific product and an icon for displaying information of the candidate product. There is no reference to size or amount of information. It is simply displaying information or an icon. In other words, it is not clear how amended claim 2 for example confers a technological improvement to a technical problem.
It is also noted again that amended claim 2 nor the original specification makes any mention of size or processing loads when displaying information to a user or that this is a technical solution to a technical problem.
The same reasoning as seen above applies to claims 8 and 9 as well.
Therefore the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for claims 2-8 and newly added claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is indefinite because as recited, a user must “specify” (claim 2) a “candidate product posted on a similar media” however, in claim 6 as recited it is determined if its “similar media” or not based on limitation “determine that a first media and a second media are mutually similar media.” This is confusing as the determined similar media seen in claim 6 is obviously AFTER the candidate product icon is already displayed at the end of claim 2. In other words, the claims say the “similar media” needs to be specified in order to get the candidate product(s), but the “similar media” can’t be specified or identified until after the candidate product results are displayed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2-9 are directed to a device, method and storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A- Prong One
Independent claims 2, 8 and 9 recite steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities. Specifically, claim 2 recites:
An information display device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire posted information of information associated with an introduction of a product posted on a on mass media, wherein the posted information comprises a name of the mass media and a posted date, and the mass media comprises a television program, a social networking service (SNS), a newspaper, a magazine, a radio program, or a transportation advertisement posted on a public transportation vehicle or a station yard;
receive specification information specifying a posting media on which an introduction of a desired product to be searched is posted, wherein the specification information is input for finding the desired product;
specify, based on the posted information and the specification information, a specific product posted on the posting media and a candidate product posted on a similar media similar to the posting media, wherein the similar media is a media that may be confused with the posting media by a customer wanting the desired product; and
display, to enable the customer to find the desired product, information of the specific product and an icon for displaying information of the candidate product.
But for the recitation of generic computer components like information display device, memory, storage medium and processor, the italicized functions, when considered as a whole, describe a situation where a person requests information about a product seen online. The person is presented with information about the product along with other similar products available online. Accordingly, claim 2 recites an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity.
Thus, claim 2 recites an abstract idea, as do claims 8 and 9 which recite substantially similar subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-7 inherit the limitations that recite an abstract idea from their dependence on claim 1, and thus these claims also recite an abstract idea under the Step 2A- Prong 1 analysis. In addition, claims 3-7 recite additional limitations that further describe the abstract idea identified in the independent claims.
Claim 3 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display the specific product and the candidate product in a distinguishable manner. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 4 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive selection of at least one of the specific product or the candidate product; and display information associated with the selected product. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 5 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display a list of related products related to the selected product. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Claim 6 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: after specifying the specific product and displaying the information of the specific product and the icon, count a number of times the posting media and the similar media have been mistaken by customers, wherein the counting is performed in a case where the desired product of the customers is not a displayed specific product posted on a displayed posting media specified by a specification information of the customers but a displayed candidate product posted on a displayed similar media; and determine that a first media and a second media are mutually similar media when the number of times the first media and the second media have been mistaken greater than a predetermined number. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and mathematical calculations, formulas or relationships)
Claim 7 recites the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire preference information regarding a preference of the customer;
specify a recommended product from among products posted on the posting media and the similar media based on the preference information; and
display the recommended product. (Commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract
Step 2A- Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claims 2, 8 and 9 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements that are cited information display device, memory, storage medium and processor amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see applicant’s specification pages 5-6 and Figure 2 and see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The judicial exception recited in dependent claims 3-7 is also not integrated into a practical application under a similar analysis as above. The functions of claims 3-7 are performed with the same additional elements introduced in the independent claims, however, even these additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 2-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements information display device, memory, storage medium and processor amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) as evidenced by Applicants specification pages 5-6 and Figure 2. The computer components above are described at a very high level and generic in nature such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that generic computer components could be used to implement the invention.
Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kingston, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0175578 (see PTO-892, Ref. G) in view of Goldshtein et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,056,739 (see PTO-892, Ref. E).
As per claim 2, Kingston teaches an information display device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraphs 64, 65 and 67):
receive specification information specifying a posting media on which an introduction of a desired product to be searched is posted, wherein the specification information is input for finding the desired product (see paragraphs 41 and 43);
specify, based on the posted information and the specification information, a specific product posted on the posting media and a candidate product posted on a similar media similar to the posting media, wherein the similar media is a media that may be confused with the posting media by a customer wanting the desired product (see paragraphs 41 and 43); and
display, to enable the customer to find the desired product, information of the specific product and an icon for displaying information of the candidate product (see paragraph 34 and Figures 3-4).
Goldshtein teaches acquire posted information of information associated with an introduction of a product posted on a on mass media, wherein the posted information comprises a name of the mass media and a posted date, and the mass media comprises a television program, a social networking service (SNS), a newspaper, a magazine, a radio program, or a transportation advertisement posted on a public transportation vehicle or a station yard (see column 29, lines 20-67 and column 30, lines 45-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kingston and Goldshtein to provide information about a product advertised on mass media because users may want to learn more about products that were advertised as taught by Goldshtein (see column 1, lines 41-46).
As per claim 3, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
display the specific product and the candidate product in a distinguishable manner (see Figures 3-4).
As per claim 4, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a selection of at least one of the specific product or the candidate product; and
display information associated with the selected product (see paragraphs 33, 37 and 40).
As per claim 5, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 4. Kingston further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
display a list of related products related to the selected product (see Figure 3 and paragraph 40).
As per claim 7, Kingston and Goldshtein teach the device of claim 2. Kingston further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire preference information regarding a preference of a customer;
specify a recommended product from among products posted on the posting media and the similar media based on the preference information; and
display the recommended product (see paragraph 41).
Claims 8 and 9 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and thus rejected using the same art and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684